FCC goes into action
The Federal Communications Commission had a busy day Thursday. It opened a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking regarding the relationship between local franchising authorities (LFA) and the cable industry, including the possible entry into the business by telcos. It expanded EAS requirements to digital facilities and opened proceedings on next generation alert services and provision of service to disabled and non-English-speaking individuals. It also moved up the digital tuner deadline for television set manufacturers. The new deadline is 3/1/07, and it applies to all sets regardless of size. All sets larger than 36" should already be so-equipped, along with half of all 25"-36" sets - - and that middle group must be at 100% by next March. The franchising plank seeks information on whether those who would compete locally with cable are being unreasonably refused by LFAs. As Chairman Kevin Martin put it, "New video entrants, regardless of the technology they employ, should be encouraged - - not impeded from entry." Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein, in supporting the measure, questioned whether LFAs were really a hindrance to competition, and cautioned against the possibility of losing their up-close oversight on MVPD providers. On the EAS front, "...providers of digital broadcast and cable TV, digital audio broadcasting, satellite radio, and direct broadcast satellite services" are now bound by Commission EAS requirements, and have until 12/31/06 to come into compliance, with the exception of DBS, which gets a extra five months, to 5/31/07, and as mentioned above, opens inquiry into future development and reaching out to the disabled and non-English-speaking communities.
LFA rulemaking items
* The Notice asks if local franchising authorities are unreasonably refusing to grant competitive franchises. The Notice also asks what problems cable incumbents have encountered with LFAs, including how best the Commission can ensure that the local franchising process is not inhibiting the ability of incumbent cable operators to invest in broadband services.
* The Notice also asks whether the Commission has authority to implement the pro-competitive mandate of Section 621(a)(1). The Notice tentatively concludes that the Commission is empowered by provisions of both Title I and Title VI of the Communications Act to take steps appropriate to ensure that the local franchising process does not serve as an unreasonable barrier to entry for competitive cable operators. The Notice also tentatively concludes that the Commission may deem to be preempted and superseded any law or regulation of a State or LFA that causes an unreasonable refusal to award a competitive franchise in contravention of Section 621(a).
* The Notice tentatively conclude that it is not unreasonable for an LFA, in awarding a franchise, to "assure that access to cable service is not denied to any group of potential residential cable subscribers because of the income of the residents of the local area in which such group resides"; "allow [a] cable system a reasonable period of time to become capable of providing cable service to all households in the franchise area"; and "require adequate assurance that the cable operator will provide adequate public, educational and governmental access channel capacity, facilities, or financial support."
* Assuming there is both the need and the authority for Commission intervention, the Notice asks how the Commission should interpret the mandate of Section 621(a)(1). The item tentatively concludes that the Commission should interpret the relevant language of Section 621(a)(1) broadly in order to prohibit not only unreasonable refusals to award competitive franchises, but also the establishment of procedures and other requirements that unreasonably interfere with the ability of would-be new entrants to introduce quickly their competitive offerings.
* The item seeks comment on what specific steps should the Commission take to implement Section 621(a)(1).
* The Notice seeks comment on whether the Commission has authority to establish a minimum amount of time for potential competitors with existing facilities to build out their networks beyond their current service territories. It also seeks commenters to address what would constitute a reasonable minimum timeframe.
* Finally, the Notice asks whether the Commission should address actions at the state level, to the extent we find such actions create unreasonable barriers to entry for potential competitors.
Good Morning - Thanks for your loyal RBR readership. The only trade publication you need to stay informed.
